out the existence of a moral nature as their basis, there would seem to be no import and no propriety in them. On the contrary, the use of such terms and the making of such distinctions is what would naturally be expected on the supposition that the foundation of moral emotions and of feelings of moral obligation is actually laid in the human constitution. We may, therefore, properly infer from them, among many other sources of proof, the existence of such a moral constitution. § 212. Proofs from the operation of the passions of anger and gratitude. (V.) It may be remarked, in the fifth place, that the manner in which the passions of anger and gratitude are often found to operate, implies the existence of a power of moral perception.-The facts to which we refer are these. If we suffer what we suppose to be an injury, we are angry; and this, too, not merely with an instinctive, but a voluntary and deliberate anger. On the other hand, if we receive what we suppose to be a benefit (not merely a good, but a designed or well-meant good), we are grateful. Now we will suppose, that soon after we discover, on the one hand, that the injury was wholly accidental, and, on the other, that our supposed benefactor was governed by selfish motives, seeking his own good instead of ours. We shall generally find, under these altered circumstances, that both our anger and our gratitude will immediately disappear. But it does not appear why this marked and sudden change should take place, if we have not the power of making moral distinctions. The actual benefit on the one hand, and harm or suffering on the other, remain the same as they were at first. So far as the mere effects to ourselves are concerned, there is obviously no reason for a change in our feelings. The basis of the change which we experience is not a perception of any difference in the beneficial or hurtful results, but simply in the motives which led to them. It is the knowledge of the real nature of the motives which causes this sudden alteration. The moral sense (and, so far as we can judge, nothing short of or other than the moral sense) requires and exacts from us, as soon as their motives are discovered, that we shall place a new and far different estimation on the persons concerned. 213. Proofs of a moral nature from feelings of remorse. (VI.) Another proof of the existence of a moral nature (it will be recollected that we are considering the subject now in the most unrestricted point of view, and directing our attention simply to the general fact of a moral department) is to be found in the important circumstance, that men are evidently constituted with a susceptibility of feelings of REMORSE. It is unquestionably a matter of common consciousness, that the feelings of remorse are distinct and peculiar in their kind; in other words, that they have a separate and specific nature. Considered in reference to the classifications which have been made, they obviously belong, although no distinct notice was taken of them under that head, to the class of Emotions; and are clearly distinguishable, not only from all other feelings of the class to which they pertain, but from all other states of mind whatever. They are unpleasant or painful feelings, it is true, and in this respect agree with many others; but the suffering which is involved in them is of a peculiar character, altogether different from the mere sadness or grief which we often experience on other occasions. Now what we wish to remark here is, that the existence of these feelings always and necessarily involves, as the basis of their existence, the fact of a moral nature. When we meet with disappointment, when we become the subjects of injuries and misfortunes, which are not to be attributed in their origin to any misconduct of our own, we may experience feelings of sadness or grief, but never feelings of remorse. It is impossible that we should. Feelings of remorse always imply some responsibility and some action of our own. Nor is it every kind of action which is the occasion of their being called into existence. They imply a course of action which is morally reprehensible; that we have not merely been the occasion of harm, but have committed a wrong; that we stand arraigned, disapproved, and culpable in the decisions of our own conscience. VOL. II.-Y 214. Evidence of a moral nature from the ideas of merit and demerit, reward and punishment. (VII.) Among other sources of proof on this subject, we may add the fact that we are capable, as will no doubt generally be admitted, of framing the abstract conceptions of moral merit and demerit. We had occasion, in explaining the origin of these ideas, to remark expressly (vol. i., § 193), that it would be impossible for us to frame them without possessing the antecedent notions of right and wrong. For what merit, it was inquired, can we possibly attach to him in whom we discover no rectitude; or what demerit in him in whom we discover no want of it! But the perception of right and wrong, of virtue and of the opposite of virtue, implies the existence of a moral nature. Our ideas also of rewards and punishments are obviously based upon the fact of moral distinctions. We always make a distinction between punishment and mere suffering. The former, although in the mere amount of pain there may be no difference between the two, involves the additional idea of some real or supposed illdesert. There is the same distinction between good and reward. Reward implies not only a good or benefit conferred, but the additional notion of its being deserved. There can be no question that both reward and punishment, in the common acceptation of the terms, are understood to imply good and ill desert, or merit and demerit; and, consequently, as the ideas of merit and demerit involve the fact of a moral nature, the ideas of reward and punishment cannot be supposed to involve less. $215. The existence of a moral nature involved in systems of moral philosophy, and in other writings and treatises of a moral nature. (VIII.) The doctrine of a moral nature is necessarily involved, in the eighth place, in all treatises of Moral Philosophy, and in all works of whatever nature, the object of which is to correct the conduct of men and to make it better, not merely in the matter of pecuniary interest and supposed personal good, but in a moral point of view. Works of this kind are numerous; and they are obviously prepared upon the principle that there is such a thing as right and wrong, moral good and evil, and that men are so formed as to be capable of distinguishing the one from the other. In the opinion of these writers, at least, and in the opinion of those who receive them as correct expositors of the actual and prospective state of things, there must be in man the elements of a moral nature; the susceptibility of moral emotions, and of moral obligation. Otherwise it is obvious that their statements and reasonings must be essentially destitute of meaning and of application. These remarks will apply not only to Systems of Moral Philosophy, and to formal Treatises and Essays on Morals, but to all those lighter forms and varieties of literature (some of the Essays of Johnson and Addison, for instance), the object of which is not merely to amuse the reader, not merely to aid him in the correction of the slighter improprieties of conduct, but to impress moral truths, and to secure, in the case of those who had given themselves up to vice, a moral renovation. The remarks will apply, among other varieties of literature, to Satires, the professed object of which is to point out and to correct the prevailing vices. The Satires of Juvenal not only recognise throughout the abstract distinctions of Right and Wrong, but distinctly announce that there are original elements of moral judgment, and sources of reward and punishment in the human breast. It would be difficult to refer, in any uninspired writer, to more decisive indications of a natural conscience, and to more energetic and fearful descriptions of the miseries attending its violation, than are to be found in his Thirteenth Satire. The very first lines of this celebrated production are worthy of notice in this respect. And near the conclusion he expresses himself, in respect to those who have been guilty of violations of right, in the following significant terms. "Cur tamen hos tu Evasisse putes, quos diri conscia facti Mens habet attonitos, et surdo verbere cædit, 216. Proofs from the uniformity of law. (IX.) Another circumstance, which is entitled to no "Law small weight in the decision of this inquiry, is, that systems of law or jurisprudence, as well as of morals, have been the same, in their leading principles, in all ages of the world, and are essentially the same at the present time. It is true, there are peculiarities, founded in some cases on the physical or political condition of the country, and in others on long-established associations, which distinguish one code from another; but the great rights of persons and property are recognised in all. givers and statesmen," says Sir James Mackintosh," but, above all, moralists and political philosophers, may plainly discover in all the useful and beautiful variety of governments and institutions, and under all the fantastic multitude of usages and rites which have prevailed among men, the same fundamental, comprehensive truths, the sacred master principles which are the guardians of human society, recognised and revered, with few and slight exceptions, by every nation upon earth."* This passage is taken from his published Discourse on the Law of Nature and Nations. In another unpublished discourse on that great and interesting subject, from which an Extract is given in his recently-published Memoirs, he illustrates his general observation by going more into particulars. "I have said, in my printed Discourse," he remarks, in the Extract just referred to, "that morality admits no discoveries; and I shall now give you some reasons for a position, which may perhaps have startled some, in an age when ancient opinions seem in danger of being so exploded, that when they are produced again they may appear novelties, and be even suspected of paradox. I do not speak of the theory of morals, but of the rule of life. First examine the fact, and see whether, from the earliest times, any improvement, or even any change, has been made in the practical rules of human conduct. Look at the Code of Moses. I speak of it now as a mere human composition, without considering its sacred origin. Considering it merely in that light, it is the most ancient and the most curious memorial of the early history of mankind. More than three thousand years have elapsed since the composition of the Pentateuch; and let any * Discourse on the Law of Nature and Nations, Lond. ed., p. 35. |